Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 1, 2013 2:30pm-3:01pm PDT

2:30 pm
our board policy. >> it's one of the things that the devil is totally in the details as your discovering. we thought it was going to be a relatively quick discussion and it doesn't go that way >> we discuss that for two hours. do you very specific questions commissioner mcdonald >> so i'm sorry to have missed that meeting (laughter). >> it sounds like it was rocking and rolling. but i'm inquiring how many people are on this committee >> 6. >> 6. >> well, the maximum is 7. >> yeah. >> sorry there's also provision for 2 superintendant appointments so actually is it brings to total 9. >> so he gets 2 and we get 9.
2:31 pm
>> it was how it was written. >> so it's the capacity for 9 we currently have 6 and they serve a term of how long? >> two years ago not to exceed four years so you could have a 2 year or 20/20 year terms not to exceed four. >> you can choose that. >> so it could potentially be two, two year terms. do we have any people that are currently set to cough this committee >> the board didn't appropriate anyone. no one was appointed until late 2010. so currently, the 6 michigan's members of the committee that
2:32 pm
are seated all have the same start date sometime in 2010. so they and they were all reappointed by the board in 2012. we voted on the slate. so they're in their second two year term >> so in 2014 we could see an "x" disof all members. >> so why don't we wait until 2014 when we all would get an assigned seat or appointment. >> because there is one open seat now and the question is how this all started ways because we were trying to figure out who got the appointment. >> so why can't the superintendent do that. >> because he has two.
2:33 pm
>> so we each get one and he gets two. >> right and so out of the 7 or the 9. >> those are both open to it. 3 open seats >> so we're going to try to fill two open seats by 2014? okay >> so your trying to create a random select process to fill that one seat. you don't think we could come up with one we can all agree on one candidate. i think if we, you know, have someone brought forward it seems so random to lit one board member based on a name pulled out of the has not. i think as a board we all want to come to consensus and we want
2:34 pm
to have someone sit on the economy until 2014 when they're all removed and a let me give you background information. the advice of legal council is to have the seat associated with the current board member. some of the board are up for re-election in 20014 and may leave the board others would be assigned to members of the board that are up for re-election. it actually would create a more smooth transition to do it this way. the other piece of information that's important if you remember the board was not particle happy when we looked at what we were
2:35 pm
trying to do the advisory committee we didn't get a lot of applications it's not a diverse selection. so really the - the whole process above and beyond the q ta is the boards attempt to be more thought of physical and intentional how to be more involved in making sure our adversities committees are as deprives as the district and represent the district. so, you know, certainly your suggestion is there a candidate we can all agree on the issue is we don't want to go back to a situations where we're basically
2:36 pm
more interested in being part of the group but that's why this is complex it puts us on a path that gets us closer to where we want to be in the i understand >> say to that note. i think we could possibly come up with suggestions so we're doing outreach and recruiting, you know, who's missing and that would be a seat that can be filled until 2014 and cleared out and give even an opportunity to have a seat. it doesn't feel very - it feels
2:37 pm
random on something that's important >> i think there are is actually, one member who was appointed in 2012 so he would be eligible for a second he term in 2014 if he wants to continue and not be in another job. anyway you know, i think that didn't the advice of the legal council is the housekeeping is it would be appreciable to have each seat available for the city of board member. a big part of this conversation was her remedies of socially terms with individual board members and this being a way to
2:38 pm
transition to a situation where individual board members are associated with the terms and making the appointments. if he were to make the appointment well, we've talked about this at length >> i think we probably are having a conversation about a committee meeting. well, this is an update we're diving into the policy piece we can have a deeper conversation when you get closer to that remedies >> i think that is a recommendation. >> i certainly think they should attend with us. >> it's not a recommendation for the committee i thought that was the recommendation we would do basically unless the board has as objection to go ahead with the process.
2:39 pm
>> yeah. there was a recommendation. >> so is that going to come to the board with a vote. urging to be doing that as a committee or what the legal recommendation why wouldn't it come to the board >> it's an administrative directive. >> it's the board to push back on the interpretation. if the board wants to say do this a different way this is the time to do that or we can refer it back to committee >> i support commissioner mendosa appointment for the one seat for the 2014. >> we can't do that the board policy doesn't allow for a one
2:40 pm
year appointment. if i appoint someone to the seat it's a two year term >> it's started off in this random way and the struggle to get up and running is to try to right it so after we take this difficult hurdle that will be right going forward but we need to deal with it in the place it's going forward. sorry i don't think you didn't understand. whatever pennies i can throw in but again, i i was at the meeting >> we do count open commissions to bring forward representations but this seems one that changes the way in which we make appointments and the resolve
2:41 pm
seems different and a but you are saying a that's what commissions are for all i'm saying is i have the right to ask because you're making on and on a decision on how the decisions should be. i'm trying to understand the randomness of it and, you know, perhaps i'm missing a piece of that. i get their staggered terms and we want to make sure there's a person attached to that but i don't agree with this. >> so the goal was to we're making appoints as board
2:42 pm
members. so initialing the recommendation that came to us we didn't know it was going to be so much conversations about that but we initialing studies we were going to do a random drawing for who was going to get that one appointment and what we said in a long consideration is that we should do a random courthouses so each board member can have something to say. what if one of the men's left or resigned early so it seems like just to do it once or do it altogether >> if you're going to do the random you know the 3 board members that are up any objection and the next board
2:43 pm
members we'll get the second set which make sense oh, let's just do a random for everybody and you get stuck on a seat but that way you have a staggered system it coincides with reelections. >> yeah. i think that was discussed and there's different ways like seniority and ways we couldn't come up with a system that made more sense but randomly seemed like it made more sense. if we did is in a way of people that are terminating out or not terminating out so we thought random was the fairest way to do is it.
2:44 pm
we spent 3 hours talking about that and we were not feeling great about it but this seems like one that made the most sense >> and how many members are currently on. >> 6. >> and how long have we had only 6 members. >> we've been holding 4 applications. >> can you - can i finish my sentence then if commissioner winn's wants to add anything. there have been four people applied and when it came to the board the list of applications to fill the last seat it's more complicated, however, the board said hey, this is not a difference group and who are
2:45 pm
basically, their all parents with financial background from like 3 schools. so the question was raised well, we have this board policy it lazy 0 out very clearly our goals for a diverse set of folks. how do we get there. because where we are at now is kind of a miss and we articulated in our board policy is very clarify and awe lions how our community should represent our district and kids and everybody else but getting there is really messy and a hard. we're trying to give the staff which, you know, at first, we said ongoing staff make it happen and rightly see the staff
2:46 pm
came back to us and said where do we start. we've being been trying to map that out for giving the staffer where we get to where we're at now >> we're so good at appointing but we're going to actually appoint somebody by the time the fourteen and 13 term comes up. i wasn't in the conversation but it feels very random and a for such an important body i for the record don't say i necessarily agree with it >> it seems to me what's been relieved here is our attempts are a.d. mineral is try to
2:47 pm
standardized the process it's extremely complicated this discussion now is indicative of how much work we have to do to try to make this appointment process work. i'm in supportive of what we can do to make it more workable >> and alien with our board policy. the rules committee has made that a stand item commissioner winn is not a member of the committee bs but has been attending and i invite other board members it's something that clearly awhile it's boring and technical i feel sorry for the audience it's of vital
2:48 pm
importance. you've gone ahead and given the recommendation to council so there was no discussion >> it's the purpose of the board here's the issue we discussed here's the direction we gave staff and if as you've expressed people you or anyone else has an issue and wants to talk about it more or bring it back to another forum we can do that. >> and i think we considered a lot of different possibilities and for some legal reasons or policy we ended up on this one. if there's a recommendation that you have of another way to look at that that you want us to consider rules i'm fully okay to take it back to rules. it's not so urgent we need to
2:49 pm
move ahead right now. we left the rules committee based on a lot of possibility but one you said people are terminating out and stuff if there's another alternative you want us to consider >> i want to add we asked mr. davis to continuously their the information with the interior board. i know the board did get the information from the rules committee. and very briefly i said we should wait for legal council is going to advise us but to continually share that conversation it's in movement and you all need to think kept abreast >> i certainly don't want this
2:50 pm
brought up again at rules, however, if anything that i have already recommended hadn't been vested i would like to explore that with kathy just to see what ear thoughts on something like that if we haven't already move forward on something. >> yeah. i think those were not - under no circumstances particular recommendations were not necessarily talked about in detail and if we want to go back to rules committee and discuss that we can do that and to vet those with council and see if those are possibility. i think there was an issue because the full board can't make the decisions but highway we decide who the board member
2:51 pm
is we can do it differently and if you have recommendations we'll explore those >> okay. so now you're talking your moving on undoing the random selects how are you going to do that or is that the part you're trying to figure out. >> we're going to tell staff to figure that out. yeah. i think the direction of the committee is that we have to figure out how to do the random drawing to make it happen is whether or not you wanted to amend broadly policy to put some specific provision in for removal of advisory committee
2:52 pm
members because it's silent on that. >> it would have to go through the process to be amended because it's board policy. >> so i think what a i've heard correct me if i am wrong is that commissioner mcdonald as put some options on the table that have not been fully vetted and she's requested a further discussion since those with alternatives that are not imply discussed so as the committee chair i'm asking you as the committee chair what steps we should take considering commissioner mcdonald's comments
2:53 pm
and requests. >> yeah. as i said i'm happy to bring this back to rules committee and talk about the alternatives. i want to make sure that i had circulated on those alternatives that we want to violated. it was the full board that comes to consensus. i said we can't do under policy now so how do we decide who the person is that gets the appointment and consider that alternative we can bring that back to rules absolutely >> when is you're next meeting. >> the third wednesday so that would be november 20th. >> yeah. >> okay. any other reports from board members. >> just one final last comment
2:54 pm
that is a standing item at rules xhez committee it's not finished we'll be working on this issue for a sometime. i want to make sure that other board members - i'm sorry president norton that other board members feel free to attend the meeting. pardon me, ma'am, >> can i just clarify it's a standing item but i think what i've heard is that the standing item is not for q ta but for the process of all the board appointed adversities committees so as we heard earlier tonight there's a lot of questions on b cc and all of them it's a standing item. >> we're all starting at such a
2:55 pm
different place how many open seats and the process of them have their own process so we have 0 deal with each committee separately and what's legally mandated and how do we get here. do we need to craft expectation and the process of getting hero for each committee is different >> and here's the alignment with the board policy. >> sorry the conversation rather refer back to the rules committee since we're talking about a specific situation a situation in which we find ourselves that won't occur in the future. it's possible for us to wave the board policy and so we could wave the board policy to have a
2:56 pm
one year term or whatever other issues we should do it in advance and say oh, by the way, it's not a 2 year term we should decide that beforehand to get through this situation so we have a process in place on an ongoing basis >> i think that's a great discussion i have some issues with that but we'll bring it to the rules committee. >> you're all invited because you want to see how this comes out. >> yes. ms. fewer. >> yeah. i anxiously await that meeting. i want to mention torment at
2:57 pm
5:30 we'll have a meeting to update the diversity report and also the retention of our teachers and other staff. i encourage everyone to attend in particular >> could you announce the budget committee on november 6th. >> sure go ahead. >> thank you. so yesterday, i had an opportunity to attend the kidnap luncheon fundraiser for all the kidnap charter schools featured governor jerry brown and the testimonials of the students who grew up in low income families but really were invited in heavily by the schools. i want to congratulate them on
2:58 pm
that event >> i wanted to tell the city public i had an opportunity to attend an event at the north theatre. it was quite a pleasure to be in the theatre and we own that building. i went to here michelle speak on the new jim crow i believe everyone should pick up a copy. i was decree expressed and glad to see it being put to use now >> i just wanted to thank you. yeah. (laughter) but only with me >> i just wanted to welcome dr. author tyler to city college he's the newly appointed city
2:59 pm
college chancellor he's going to be a close partner of ourselves from city college and we're looking forward to working closely with him. >> thank you. okay. we will now move on to item t the closed session action for the meeting the board of education approved the contract for one intifrm principle and one administrator. the board of education approved a minor modification of the schools contract with distribution to redraft the contract to include that modification. in the matter of g l vs. the unified school district case no. 80862 the board of education gives the authority of the district to pay up to the
3:00 pm
stipulated amount. wait a minute this is the vote total can't be correct and i also did not vote on that item you need to look at the vote totals again. so we may need to read this anti. can we clarify that before the at the end of this meeting. in the existing litigation meeting vs. the unified school district san francisco supreme court the board of education approved by the a vote of 5 yeses and settlement prudent to the district will resend a educational benefit allow the employee to


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on